ML20210E591

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Questions Re Issues Arising from Review of SNUPPS-Callaway Radiation Protection Program.Applicant Must Respond Before Review Can Be Completed
ML20210E591
Person / Time
Site: Callaway, 05000000
Issue date: 02/21/1981
From: Kreger W
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Tedesco R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16341D666 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-84-744 NUDOCS 8603280023
Download: ML20210E591 (2)


Text

-

e

[' f ' -

UN111 D sI A1Es

.g

  • * 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-a wassincioN. o. c. ror.ss

,4, s * *'* /

FEB ;

  • 1081 DOCKET N05: 50-483 i

and 50-486 1

MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL

~

FROM:

William E. Kreger, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI

SUBJECT:

CALLAWAY - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Plant Name: Callawai 1'and 2.

Licensing Stage: OL Docket Number:

50-483/486 LBil; R. Stark, LPM

-Responsible Branch:

Request for additional information based on FSAR review Description of Response:

Review Status: Continuing The Radiological Assessment Branch has reviewed the Snupps - Ca11away iadiation protection program as described in their FSAR with respec criteria for utility management and technical competence of _their staff. Ques -

tions. relating to issues arising from this review are enclosed with this memo.

The licensee will be required to respond to these questions before we can com-

/

plete our review. The review was perfonned y S. Block, RPS, RAB.

t,, /

(CTA44 M'

William E. Kreger, Assistp Director for Radiation Protecti Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As' stated cc:

D. Ross W. Houston W. Gacmill H. Berkow /W. Russell T. Murphy D. Collins B.J. Youngblood R. Stark RPS Staff 8603280023 860123 PDR 7

1

-744 fl

~

s

d s

.?

pq l~=-

t/.}*

ic. I a.B t-h Concurrent to the, change request in 331.2 above Figure 13.1-3 should g$

R.g also show that Health Physics technicians and Chemistry technicians become separate groups, be qualified separately as Chemistry and Radia-tion Protection Technicians, and each report directly to their respective

-x

. h Radiation Protection and Chemistry group managers. This change request-sh

/

h is also in accordance with the aforementioned draft document,

? y Please describe your plan to provide backup coverage in the event of 331.4 q%-

q.

the absence of the RPM and outline the qualifications of the individual 4..RT who will 'act as the backup. The December 1979 revision of ANSI 3.1 g

An specifies that the temporary replacement for an RPM should have-a BS jeg degree in science or engineering, 2 years experience in radiation h--

protection,1 year of which should be nuclear power plant experience, I: {$!$

6 months of which should be on-site, ii k l NE

.q 331.5 Section 13.1.2.3 specifying shift crew composition does not state that

- h I

1 I

! Eg H.P. technician will be onsite at all times (e.g., including back-g an shift and weekends). NUREG-0654 " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation

'].y.,.

m.

M:

of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparation in Support of TS

~

y

~ Nuclear Power Plants" requires that 'a radiation protection technician, t;.

,, '.f whose qualifications are described in ANSI 18.1, shall be onsite at 1.

Section 13.1.2.3, as Oritten, would allow a designated

- i

. all times.

member of the shift crew (e.g., reactor operator) to act as a health-

~1, i

' -]

physics technic'ian if he is qualified to impicment radiation protection i

+s It should be noted that this qualification is no longer g.

n procedures.

Only an assigned g

acceptable to the staff after the reactor is at pot.er. -

health physics technician will be acceptable based on new staff req QY

. Section 13.1.2.3_should be revised accordingly, y

! Ps

m. ~..s tm,.

-